WI Hamilton Plan adopted at Constitutional Convention?

This may be more ASB than anything else, but it's pre-1900, so I figured that I'd at least post it here to see what the responses were. WI, for whatever reason, the 'Hamilton Plan' was adopted at the Constitutional Convention instead of what ended up becoming our modern-day U.S. Constitution? What kind of circumstances would be needed for the founders to endorse such strong centralized government in the first place? Who would become the first 'Governor' of the United States? What kind of reforms would we possibly see in the future?
 
As you seem to already know, not one of the states was interested in such a surrender of sovereignty to a body that hadn't even been formed yet ;) That said, remove the last two clauses - State Governors appointed by the national legislature, and the national legislature having veto power over state laws - and you may have a workable system.

George Washington would still be the first Governor. It takes not just butterflies but Mothra to dislodge him, if he's alive.

How they could be frightened enough to consider surrendering sovereignty - hmm. The French decide they don't have to put up with this crap at the Treaty of Paris, possibly with Lafayette dying, so that they get Quebec back, as well as a (contested) claim on the Ohio. Perhaps that requires a French victory on the Continent? If by 1783 the French and Americans are no longer allies and the French look serious about colonizing the place...
 
This may be more ASB than anything else, but it's pre-1900, so I figured that I'd at least post it here to see what the responses were. WI, for whatever reason, the 'Hamilton Plan' was adopted at the Constitutional Convention instead of what ended up becoming our modern-day U.S. Constitution? What kind of circumstances would be needed for the founders to endorse such strong centralized government in the first place? Who would become the first 'Governor' of the United States? What kind of reforms would we possibly see in the future?


Hamilton himself insisted that this plan was only to put it all on the table and was brought up to bring up full debate. So that aside lets talk it out.

If we go with Shawn's suggestion and drop the last two clauses I think it could pass.

For this Shawn adjusted scheme to pass, Shay's Rebellion has to have been much more severe and much longer in time. Also there will have to be serious bloodshed to scare the Founder's into this system. The entire point of the ARW was to not pay taxes to a King far away; I don't see how paying them to a King at home is that different. With that said Washington is your man and will always be the guy if he is alive.

As for Later reforms, I don't think the system would change much but it is possible for greater personal freedoms to be worked in and the King to become more limited (even Hamilton's plan the King was pretty neutered). I see an explicit bill of rights being passed at the outset.
 

Thande

Donor
Thanks for linking to that Wiki article, it's interesting stuff. I'm particularly taken with that plan that allows for a multi-person executive elected for only one year, and upon stepping down they then become life members of the equivalent of the supreme court.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
If the Hamilton Plan was adopted by the Convention, there's not a chance in hell that the states would ratify the Constitution. It was a near-run thing IOTL.
 
If the Hamilton Plan was adopted by the Convention, there's not a chance in hell that the states would ratify the Constitution. It was a near-run thing IOTL.

The only way I can see it happening is a stronger and bloodier Shay's Rebellion, personally.
 
Shay's Rebellion could work. With that system, IDK if the American republic could actually survive without its history ending up looking like one of the South American republics (Imagine if Andrew Jackson still came about and became Governor, or someone with even greater desire for executive powers...)
 
Thanks for linking to that Wiki article, it's interesting stuff. I'm particularly taken with that plan that allows for a multi-person executive elected for only one year, and upon stepping down they then become life members of the equivalent of the supreme court.

An interesting exercise in executive futility :D. I believe that was Franklin's idea, operating off of the absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think this idea might gain more traction today but back then Franklin suggested it because he liked the idea of diluted Exec. Power.
 
Shay's Rebellion could work. With that system, IDK if the American republic could actually survive without its history ending up looking like one of the South American republics (Imagine if Andrew Jackson still came about and became Governor, or someone with even greater desire for executive powers...)

Interestingly enough, I think that if this sort of system developed, it would probably eventually turn into a more parliamentary type of system, with the Governor losing power overtime in favor of the Assembly.
 
Interestingly enough, I think that if this sort of system developed, it would probably eventually turn into a more parliamentary type of system, with the Governor losing power overtime in favor of the Assembly.
Most likely. In essence, the Governor of the US in Hamilton's plan is a monarch in all but name.

The Assembly will very quickly act to assert its authority over someone who has no popular check on his power, and likely, the people as well as major interests in business and land will back the Assembly over the Governor.

In particular, the Council of ministers will end up becoming beholden to the Assembly, which still has the power of the purse. And very quickly, the usefulness of the Governor's absolute veto will begin to wear down, as the Governor will lose any cooperation from the Assembly.
 
For Hamilton's plan to work I think their would have to be twop things either removed or modified.


Firstly the sovereignty question, while it's possible to get a more centralized government, basically no one is going to agree to a plan that created a Centralized state, rather than a Federation.
The compromise here would be that the states would continue to exist and have certain constitutionally protected powers, much as OTL, but that Federal law was supreme essentially creating a system like the modern United States uses.

Secondly, the Absolute Veto, no one is going to agree to give a single person that much power, especially since it goes against everyones interests.
It's likely a system like OTL's would be created, with the Governor being given Veto power, but he Legislature the power to override the Veto.


Eventually their would likely be amendments creating term limits and direct elections.
 
Top